Divorce and Remarriage for Two Reasons

35 Pages·2009·0.27 MB·English

Divorce and Remarriage for Two Reasons
William A. Heth

Introduction

The majority view among evangelicals today is that there are two grounds which would
permit divorce and remarriage, namely marital unfaithfulness and desertion by an unbeliever.1
Both are violations of marriage as a covenant made between two individuals with God acting as
their witness. Two New Testament statements, one by Jesus and one by Paul, support this view:
“I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries
another woman commits adultery” (Matt. 19:9; cf. 5:32).

But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such
circumstances; God has called us to live in peace (1 Cor. 7:15).2

For many years I defended the minority view that Jesus and Paul may well have permitted
marital separation or legal divorce, but that they did not thereby sanction remarriage.3 I now

1The 1992 Christianity Today readers survey revealed that “The majority believe that
fornication (73 percent) and desertion by a non-Christian spouse (64 percent) are two scriptural
grounds for remarriage. At the same time, a significant minority believe Jesus taught that
believers should not remarry after divorce (44 percent) and that God designed marriage to be
permanent, and remarriage constitutes adultery (44 percent). Less than four out of ten believe
there may be reason for remarriage other than adultery or desertion. Those who have been
divorced are more likely to accept other reasons” (Haddon Robinson, “CT Readers Survey: Sex,
Marriage, and Divorce,” Christianity Today, Dec. 14, 1992, p. 31).
2NIV and so throughout unless indicated otherwise. This chapter contains revised
portions of my article "Jesus on Divorce: How My Mind Has Changed," Southern Baptist
Journal of Theology 6:1 (Spring 2002): 4-29. Used by permission. I would also like to say a
word of thanks to Dr. David Instone-Brewer, Tyndale House, Cambridge, for the many e-mail
exchanges we shared and the way his work has influenced my own thinking on this subject most
recently.
3Wm. A. Heth, “Another Look at the Erasmian View of Divorce and Remarriage,”
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25 (1982): 263-72; “The Meaning of Divorce in
Matthew 19:3-9,” Churchman 98 (1984): 136-52; “Divorce and Remarriage” in Applying the
Scriptures: Papers From ICBI Summit III (ed. K. S. Kantzer; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987),
219-39; “Divorce, but No Remarriage” in Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views (ed.
H. Wayne House; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990), 73-129; “The Changing Basis for
Permitting Remarriage after Divorce for Adultery: The Influence of R. H. Charles,” Trinity
Journal 11 NS (1990): 143-59; “Divorce and Remarriage: The Search for an Evangelical
2
believe I was mistaken and would like to explain in this chapter the most important reasons why
I believe the Scriptures permit, but by no means encourage, divorce and remarriage in the event
of a spouses’ unrepentant sexual immorality and desertion by an unbeliever.

Marriage Is a Covenant, but Not an Unbreakable One (Genesis 2:24)
Naturally our attitude toward divorce and remarriage will be determined by our convictions
about the nature of the marriage relationship itself. This is why we need to begin with a clear
understanding of the Old Testament passage that Jesus cited as the basis for what he taught.
When questioned by the Pharisees concerning his views on the permissibility of divorce
“for any cause” (Matt. 19:3; cf. Mark 10:2), Jesus cited two texts from Genesis 1 and 2:
“‘Haven’t you read,’ he replied, ‘that at the beginning the Creator “made them male and female
[Gen. 1:27],” and said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to
his wife, and the two will become one flesh [Gen. 2:24].”’” So what can be gleaned from
Genesis 2:24 about the nature and permanence of the marriage relationship?
Covenant Language: “leave and cleave”
When we read “For this reason a man will leave . . . and cleave . . . ,” we are reading the
language of biblical covenants. The term “leave” here and other places in the Old Testament
refers to the shift of an individual’s devotion and loyalty from one person or group to another (cf.
Deut. 28:20; 31:16; Ruth 2:11; Jer. 1:16; Hos. 4:10). The word “cleave” is especially prominent
as a technical term in the covenant terminology of Deuteronomy (cf. Gen. 34:3; Deut. 10:20;

Hermeneutic,” Trinity Journal NS 16:1 (Spring 1995): 63-100. With Gordon J. Wenham, Jesus
and Divorce: Towards an Evangelical Understanding of New Testament Teaching (London:
Hodder & Stoughton, 1984; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985; updated ed.; Carlisle: Paternoster,
1997).
3
11:22; 13:4; 30:20; Josh. 22:5; 23:8; 1 Kings 11:2). So when a man leaves his father and
mother and cleaves to his wife, he is abandoning one loyalty and beginning another. That the
husband’s loyalty to his wife (and the wife’s to her husband) is to be exclusive of all others is
also emphasized in the Old Testament. The prophets employ the marriage metaphor to show that
Israel’s covenant relationship with Yahweh excluded all other gods (Jer. 31:32; Hos. 13:4; cf.
Exod. 20:1-6).
Marriage Covenants Are Established by
Vows and Include Obligations

Further reinforcement that marriage is a covenant is the final statement in Genesis 2:24 that
the man and the woman “will become one flesh.” This is an abbreviated reference to the pledge
of loyalty that Adam just made to Eve with God as his witness: “This is now bone of my bones,
and flesh of my flesh” (Gen. 2:23a). In biblical times, an oath or a vow was the main ingredient
in establishing a covenant between two people or groups. God is actually called upon to act as
“the enforcer” of the covenant,4 and Adam’s words in Genesis 2:23a is his pledge to God to put
Eve first in his life. If we fill in the details of Adam’s vow, he is saying: “‘I hereby invite you,
God, to hold me accountable to treat this woman as part of my own body.’”5 This highlights the
gravity of the vows marriage partners make before the Almighty God. The teaching of Genesis
2:23-24 is what prompted Paul to say to husbands in Ephesians 5:28: “In this same way [that
Christ sacrificially loved the church and was willing to die for her], husbands ought to love their

4Cf. Gordon P. Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant: Biblical Law and Ethics as
Developed from Malachi (Biblical Studies Library; Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998; Leiden:
Brill, 1994), 11-12, 193, 215. Hugenberger is pastor of Park Street Church in Boston and
adjunct professor of OT at Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary.
5Ibid., 165.
4
wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.” God is invoked at wedding
ceremonies to witness the vows that couples make to one another, and to break such vows is
invite God’s displeasure (cf. Exod. 20:7).
Covenants Were Used to Extend Family-like
Loyalties beyond Literal Flesh and Blood Families

The nature of the marriage covenant is also illuminated by an understanding of the four
essential ingredients that go into the making of a “covenant” (b(cid:1)rît) in the Old Testament.
Covenants established (1) a relationship (2) with someone who was not a relative (3) that
included obligations (4) which were established by an oath.6 Covenants did not create kinship
relationships between formerly unrelated people. Rather they were the vehicle for extending the
loyalties that attended such relationships.7 It is telling that the Hebrew word for “covenant” is
not used at all in the Old Testament “of naturally occurring relationships and the ordinary
obligations which attend them, such as those which exist between parents and a child or between
blood brothers (cf. Gen. 4:9).”8 Thus the one flesh marriage relationship does not make
husbands and wives as closely related as they will be to their own flesh and blood children. If
this were the case, then the marriage relationship might be virtually indissoluble.
Marriage Covenants Can Be Broken
So if Scripture indicates that marriage is a covenant (cf. Ezek. 16:8, 60; Mal. 2:10-16) to

6Ibid., 184.
7Cf. D. J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (AnBib 21a; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1981
[1st ed. 1963]), 175, cited in Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, 11; cf. 164, n. 161 & p. 180.
Cf. also G. E. Mendenhall, s.v. “Covenant,” Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (4 vols;
Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 1:716.
8Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, 180.
5
which God is a witness (Mal. 2:14; Gen. 31:50), just how permanent are biblical covenants?
The marriage relationship should not be viewed as on a par with the seemingly permanent nature
of the New Covenant, the covenant that God said he would never break with his people (cf. Jer.
31:31-34). The New Covenant is distinctive, and God does indeed want us to model our actions
after his own (Matt. 5:48; Eph. 5:22-33); but as one writer has observed, “‘God is not a man that
he should change his mind; but neither is a man God that his word should abide for ever.’”9
There is indeed a relationship between biblical marriage law and covenant concepts, but the
partners in the New Covenant (God and fallen humanity) are not the same as the partners in a
marriage covenant (two sinful but redeemed individuals with wills of their own).
Furthermore, covenants are not inherently unbreakable. Where Hebrew usage is
concerned, “covenants may be both violated and dissolved–with both of these concepts
expressed by the same underlying Hebrew expression which is customarily rendered ‘broken’ in
most English versions . . . “10 As many have observed, Jesus’ statement, “Therefore what God
has joined together, let man not separate” (Matt. 19:6b//Mark 10:9), does not mean “no one can
separate,” but rather it means “‘It is possible to separate, but you should not.’”11

9Oliver M. T. O’Donovan, Marriage and Permanence (Nottingham, 1978), 17, cited in
David Field, “The divorce debate–where are we now?” Themelios 8:3 (April 1983): 28.
10Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, 3, n. 25. Cf. also David Instone-Brewer,
Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2002), 1-19.
11David Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Church: Biblical Solutions for
Pastoral Realities (London: Paternoster, 2003), 7. Cf. Craig L. Blomberg, “Marriage, Divorce,
Remarriage, and Celibacy: An Exegesis of Matthew 19:3-12,” Trinity Journal 11 NS (1990):
169-70; Bruce Kaye, “‘One Flesh’ and Marriage,” Colloquium 22 (1990): 51.
6
Sexual Fidelity: A Crucial Covenant Obligation
What role, then, does sexual union play in the formation of the marriage covenant?
Clearly, sexual union does not constitute marriage in and of itself (cf. 1 Cor. 6:16). Some have
argued that during Old Testament times the actual consummation of the marriage is what put the
final stamp on a couple’s union after they bore public witness by pledging their vows to one
another.12 The apostle Paul, however, speaks of sexual relations in marriage as a mutual
obligation that husbands and wives willingly render to one another (1 Cor. 7:2-5). Where did
Paul get this idea?
Ancient Near Eastern marriage covenants or contracts included stipulations that were either
written down or stated verbally before witnesses at a ceremony. These obligations could vary
from one marriage to another. There were also certain basic rights and responsibilities that
pertained to every marriage. However, the most important covenant obligations were normally
not written down.13 This is because everyone already understood what they were. These
consisted of “food, clothing and marital rights” (Exod. 21:10).14 Indeed, sexual faithfulness is
one of the stipulations that is rarely listed in these ancient Near Eastern marriage covenants, and
thus one of the most important. This is confirmed by the fact that the death penalty for adultery

12So Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, 248, 279.
13Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible, 8.
14The distinctive contribution of Instone-Brewer’s work is that he identifies two
additional biblical grounds for divorce based on Exod. 21:10-11. Rabbinic sources classified
these under two headings: material neglect and emotional neglect (Divorce and Remarriage in
the Bible, 102). Both the rabbis and Paul, he argues, applied these equally to the wife and the
husband (cf. 1 Cor. 7:3-5, 32-34). The three provisions of Exod. 21:10-11 also “became the
basis for the vows in Jewish marriage contracts and in Christian marriage services via the
reference in Ephesians 5:28-29" (275).
7
is recorded throughout the ancient Near East and in the Old Testament itself (Lev. 20:10; Deut.
22:23-24; cf. Jer. 29:23).
The gravity of the sin of marital unfaithfulness in the eyes of both God and all humanity is
evident throughout the Old Testament. Adultery was not only an offense committed against an
injured husband, but it was also an offense against God (cf. Gen. 20:6-10; 39:7). Adulterers are
linked with murderers (Job 24:14-15) and treacherous men (Jer. 9:2) who misuse God’s name
(Jer. 29:23) and oppress widows (Mal. 3:5). We also read in the New Testament, “Let marriage
be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the
sexually immoral and adulterous” (Heb. 13:4). If this is how offensive God viewed a violation
of the sexual exclusivity pledge in the marriage covenant, then it is most probable that Jesus,
God’s son, would view that same sin similarly.
Let me sum up. The Genesis 2:24 “one flesh” relationship that results from the marriage
covenant ratified by vows before witnesses is not an indissoluble union. Rather it is one that
should preeminently not be violated, and a sexual sin like adultery--one that could receive the
death penalty throughout the Old Testament world–is viewed as a major violation of the
faithfulness vow which a husband and wife pledge to one another.

The Biblical Recognition that All Divorces are Not Wrong
One of the main reasons why I believe that Jesus permitted divorce and remarriage for at
least marital unfaithfulness is that Scripture itself makes a distinction between divorce with
justifiable grounds and divorce without grounds.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4: Justifiable and Unjustifiable Divorces

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is the central Old Testament text on divorce. Let’s take a closer look:
8
When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he
has found a matter of indecency15 in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts
it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, 2 and if she
goes and becomes another man’s wife, 3 and the latter man hates her and writes her a
certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter
man dies, who took her to be his wife, 4 then her former husband, who sent her away, may
not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination
before the LORD. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the LORD your God is
giving you for an inheritance. (Deut. 24:1-4, ESV [Emphasis mine.])

The specific ground for divorce mentioned in verse 1, “a matter of indecency” ((cid:1) ervat d(cid:1)b(cid:1)r),
was the point in dispute among the followers of the Jewish teachers Hillel and Shammai during
Jesus’ ministry. In fact, when Jesus was asked by some Pharisees, “‘Is it lawful for a man to
divorce his wife for any matter?’” (Matt. 19:3), they were asking him if he agreed with the
popular Hillelite view encapsulated in the phrase “for any matter.” Followers of Hillel placed no
limits whatsoever on the Jewish husband’s unilateral right to divorce his wife. The Shammaites
on the other hand focused on the word “indecency” in the phrase in Deuteronomy 24:1 and
limited the husband’s right of divorce to “adultery.”
Put simply, the law in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 states that a divorced woman who has
contracted a second marriage may never subsequently be taken back by her first husband. In
1986, Raymond Westbrook highlighted a crucial distinction between the two divorces mentioned
in this passage.16 In the original marriage, the husband finds “a matter of indecency” in his wife

15I am departing from the ESV here to pursue a more literal rendering of the Hebrew text
in order to clarify a point.
16Cf. Raymond Westbrook, “The Prohibition on Restoration of Marriage in Deuteronomy
24:1-4,” in Studies in the Bible 1986 (Scripta Hierosolymitana 31; Jerusalem, Magnes, 1986),
387-405. Both Hugenberger (Marriage as a Covenant, 79-81) and Instone-Brewer (Marriage
and Divorce in the Bible, 7) affirm Westbrook’s findings on the distinction between the two
divorces and the related financial penalties, but find the unjust enrichment motivation only half
correct. Neither Stephen Clark (Putting Asunder: Divorce and remarriage in biblical and
9
and divorces her (v. 1), but the wife’s second husband divorces her because he “hates” (NIV
“dislikes”) her (v. 3). Westbrook did an extensive survey of marriage and divorce customs in the
ancient Near East out of which the Old Testament laws arose, modified redemptively as they
were by what God revealed to Moses. He also studied Jewish literature written after the close of
the Old Testament that interpreted and applied the biblical teaching.17
Westbrook found that a phrase like “a matter of indecency” (Deut. 24:1) refers to a
justifiable or valid ground for divorce; but when “hates” or “dislikes” is added to the divorce
formula, it “is used to show that the action arose from a subjective motive and without objective
grounds to justify it–and for this reason is blameworthy.”18 This can be seen in Deuteronomy
24:3 where “hate” does not refer to the divorce itself, but to the subjective motive for the
divorce. When a woman was subjectively or invalidly divorced, she is entitled to a financial
settlement. She received back the dowry, which was a monetary or material gift given by the
bride’s father for her security in the marriage. Generally, she also would receive some
compensation from her husband’s resources (i.e., divorce payments). This means that divorce
without objective grounds was costly for the husband. Divorce for “dislike,” though legal, was
frowned upon by both the Old Testament and the surrounding ancient Near Eastern culture as
evidenced by the financial penalty imposed upon the husband.

pastoral perspective [Bryntirion, Bridgend, Wales: Bryntirion Press, 1999]) nor Alex R. G.
Deasley (Marriage and Divorce in the Bible and the Church [Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill
Press, 2000]) mention Westbrook in connection with their treatment of Deut. 24:1-4.
17Cf. also Judith R. Wegner, Chattel or Person? The Status of Women in the Mishnah
(New York: Oxford, 1988), 80-86; Léonie J. Archer, Her Price Is Beyond Rubies: The Jewish
Woman in Graeco-Roman Palestine (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement
Series 60; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic/JSOT Press, 1990), 173, 176-81.
18Westbrook, “The Prohibition on Restoration of Marriage in Deuteronomy 24:1-4,” 402.
10
Malachi 2:16 Does Not Say God Hates All Divorce
This combination of “hate (NIV “dislike”) and divorce” is found not only in Deuteronomy
24:3 but also in Malachi 2:16, aptly captured by the ESV translation:
For the man who hates and divorces, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment
with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be
faithless.”19
Translations of Malachi 2:16 like the NASB, “For I hate divorce, says the Lord, the God of
Israel” (cf. KJV, NIV, NLT, NRSV), likely misconvey the sense of the original. In the Hebrew
text, the subject of “he hates” is probably not Yahweh, but the man, and so the reference is to an
unjustifiable divorce (based on “hate”).20 This suggests that there is a justifiable divorce,
however tragic, which God does not condemn. Most translations incorrectly convey the notion
that God is against divorce of any kind.
The Deuteronomy 24:4 Prohibition Is Not Directly Applicable Today

On several occasions I have received calls asking whether or not the Deuteronomy 24:1-4

19For the best defense of this translation, see Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, 48-
83. Instone-Brewer concurs (Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible 7, n. 30). David Clyde Jones
(“A Note on the LXX of Malachi 2:16,” Journal of Biblical Literature 109 [1990]: 683-85) also
points out, prior to Hugenberger (but not listed in Hugenberger’s bibliography), that the LXX
manuscripts a [‘ aleph] B A and Q witness to the interpretation favored here: “If you divorce out
of hatred.” Jones does not evidence familiarity with Westbrook and seems not to notice that the
divorce for “a matter of indecency” in Deut. 24:1 differs from the one God justly condemns in
Mal. 2:16 (cf. David Clyde Jones, Biblical Christian Ethics [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994], 189-
92).
20Actually, the subject of “he hates” is probably not Yahweh, but the man. Here is
Hugenberger’s paraphrase of Mal. 2:16: “‘If one hates and divorces [that is, if one divorces
merely on the ground of aversion], says Yahweh, God of Israel, he covers his garment with
violence [i.e., such a man visibly defiles himself with violence], says Yahweh of hosts.
Therefore, take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless [against your wife]’” (Marriage as a